Hi, On 9-Sep-25 11:28 AM, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 9th, 2025 at 11:21, Hans de Goede <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> On 9-Sep-25 12:22 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 09:36:39AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/8/25 9:33 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On 8-Sep-25 09:20, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/8/25 1:18 AM, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> A number of existing schemas use 'leds' property to provide >>>>>>> phandle-array of LED(s) to the consumer. Additionally, with the >>>>>>> upcoming privacy-led support in device-tree, v4l2 subnode could be a >>>>>>> LED consumer, meaning that all camera sensors should support 'leds' >>>>>>> and 'led-names' property via common 'video-interface-devices.yaml'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To avoid dublication, commonize 'leds' property from existing schemas >>>>>>> to newly introduced 'led-consumer.yaml'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aleksandrs Vinarskis [email protected] >>>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>> + leds: >>>>>>> + minItems: 1 >>>>>>> + maxItems: 1 >>>>>> >>>>>> My brain compiler suggests this will throw a warning (minItems should >>>>>> be redundant in this case) >>>>>> >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + led-names: >>>>>>> + enum: >>>>>>> + - privacy-led >>>>>> >>>>>> Nit: "privacy" makes more sense without the suffix, as we inherently >>>>>> know this is supposed to be an LED >>>>> >>>>> Note "privacy-led" as name is already used on the x86/ACPI side and >>>>> the code consuming this will be shared. >>>>> >>>>> With that said if there is a strong preference for going with just >>>>> "privacy" the x86 side can be adjusted since the provider-info is >>>>> generated through a LED lookup table on the x86/ACPI side. So we can >>>>> just modify both the lookup table generation as well as the already >>>>> existing led_get(dev, "privacy-led") call to use just "privacy" >>>>> without problems. >>>> >>>> In that case, it may be cleaner to just go with what we have today >>>> (unless the dt maintainers have stronger opinions) >>> >>> Well, I do, but I guess it's fine. Please don't add the suffix on the >>> rest and add a comment for why it's there. >> >> >> As mentioned dropping the "-led" suffix is no big deal for the ACPI >> side and if we don't want the suffix then IMHO we should just drop >> it rather then making an exception here. >> >> Attached are 2 patches which drop the suffix on the ACPI side. >> >> If people agree with dropping the suffix I'll officially submit these >> upstream. > > Sounds like this is the preferred way. Could you please CC me when you > submit it? I will then respin this series and indicate yours as > dependency.
Done, including adding you to the Cc. Regards, Hans
